Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the dangers of government surveillance
Governemnt surveillance ssay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What are the dangers of government surveillance
Introduction In the aftermath of terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, citizens became increasingly concerned with their safety and the protection of their civil liberties leading to an increase in security, measures both nationally and internationally. Civil liberties are defined as “the right of people to do or say things that are not illegal without being stopped or interrupted by the government” (Merriam-Webster). The issue arises when the government invades these liberties, specifically privacy, to protect citizens from terrorist attacks and other preventable incidents. There is a very fine line between too much interference and not enough; everyone wants to be safe without compromising their privacy. The NSA …show more content…
The Patriot Act’s goal was to “Unit and Strengthen America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” One of the main goals of this act was to change some of the restrictions Clinton put on law officials. After the act was passed, intelligence officials and law officials were allowed to share information with each other (Patriot Act). The U.S. Secretary General gained more power through the Patriot Act and was allowed to detain and deport terrorist suspects. Another change as a result of the act was much easier access to search warrants. Instead of having to get individual warrants for every location surrounding a case, the Patriot Act allowed one warrant to cover all locations related to one alleged terrorist. By allowing warrants to be passed with such ease it made investigations more timely but also put citizens privacy at stake. These laws reassured the public of their safety immediately after a terrorist attack but, in more current times as technology continues to advance, people feel threatened by the growing power of the …show more content…
A possible agency could be the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A third option, would be to create a third party only responsible for the data. The disadvantage to this is fear by the public that it would just become an extension to the NSA. This third party would also be carrying out a government function with higher costs, more legal ambiguity, and less accountability. A final possible solution would be to eliminate the phone-data program altogether. The drawback to this solution is the work needed to find an alternative to collection information about
In an article written by James Ball he explains that the NSA collects “pretty much everything it can”. Ball explains that the NSA collects information from everyone “including of individuals under no suspicion of illegal activity”. The NSA “collect(s) all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always” is also said by the Domestic Surveillance Directorate, implying that the NSA collects information from phone calls, messages, internet browsing history, emails, and any other possible mediums of information. This is unacceptable as a lot of private information that is being held by the NSA is from people that are not under suspicion of illegal activities. Yes, the NSA is gathering information from everyone so it can identify threats before people have a chance of attacking. However, not everyone is a threat to the safety of the general public so storing the information of all people is not justified. It would be understandable if the NSA just analyzed text messages, phone calls, and other sources of information to be able to determine if someone is a potential threat and store their information only if they are a suspect. One’s text message should not be stored if it does not show any potential threat. People’s transaction information should not be kept if it is not a suspicious transaction. Apart from the NSA analyzing
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
After the horrendous terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center a new Bill was passed by congress shortly after September 11, 2004. This bill is known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act also called Patriot Act 2. This bill was designed as a follow-up to the USA Patriot Act to work in increasing government surveillance, detention and other law enforcement powers while reducing basic checks and balances on such powers. By the beginning of the year 2003 a draft of the legislation was available. Amongst the most severe problems the bill diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy, and diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Also the bill undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overboard definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext. Furthermore, unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. (http://www.aclu.org/Safeand Free/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206)
The people’s apprehensiveness does not come from the government’s ability to monitor their phone calls. It is the idea that they are listening to their individual conversations. The government needs to communicate to its citizens on the capabilities of the program. Most of the information on the limits of PRISM has come from the data leaks of Edward Snowden. The common consensus is that the government is able to access information by merely advising a meeting with a judge that is not withheld to the public. However, contrary to the popular belief that they are listening to phone calls, they are merely collecting the date and length of each phone call (Stray).
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
Following the terrorist attacks, Congress created the Patriot Act. The act allowed law enforcement's around the country greater ability to track terrorism or possible terrorists. It expanded the governments ability to investigate and punish terrorists. This act was accepted quickly by the House of Representatives, and was passed almost unanimously in the Senate. President George W. Bush signed this act into being on October 6th, 2001. This act allows the police to have surveillance over any form of communication that could be used by a terrorist. Things that were private privileges, such as emails, the internet, and, ...
What is the Patriot Act? The USA PATRIOT act was signed into law quickly without much debate back in 2001 right after the September 11th attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The Patriot Act touches almost everything from more funding for businesses that are affected by terrorist attacks all the way to funding affected families of terrorist attacks. The main reason the Patriot act was put in place was to prevent future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and overseas attacks on Americans. With the act the government would try to stop the attacks before they take place to prevent American deaths. The Patriot Act was put in place to protect America, and at the time many agreed with the Act and went along with it. That was at first. That was when many Americans felt threatened for their safety. Now, many have had time to reflect back on the Patriot Act and feel differently (Ball 2004 p. 78-84).
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
Shortly after the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks, the US congress enacted a law, commonly known as The Patriot Act. This law enlarges the power of government and administration allowing them to obtain the personal records of any person of suspect in hopes of preventing any future terrorist act. Many of its provisions were going to expire in 2005, but Congress passed another bill named “US PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act in 2006” to reauthorize those.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
The U.S. Patriot Act was set in place to better serve our country against terrorism. The U.S. Patriot Act is an Acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Acts (Lithwick). This act is to punish terrorist actions and improve law enforcement not only in the United States but also around the world. The United States Patriot Act consists of over 1,000 sections that describe the act in great detail. The sections include, but are not limited to, the power extended to the government by The U.S. Patriot Act to deport and incarcerate non citizens. With the U.S. Patriot Act a person’s phone line can be tapped, records of any and all purchases checked, and even library records searched. This Act also has sections to help money laundering, expand our country’s border protection, strengthening the extent of criminal laws and provide for people suffering from any type of terrorism acts (Huffman).
September 11th 2001 was not only the day when the delicate facade of American security was shattered, but it was also the events of this day that led to the violation of the rights of millions of American citizens. After relentless reprehension by the American masses on the approach that was taken after the 9/11 attacks ,the Bush administration enacted the Patriot Act on October 26th, 2001, a mere 56 days after this tragic event.The Patriot Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies so that they could hopefully avert future terrorist attacks. Under the Patriot Act The NSA (National Security Agency) could entrench upon the privacy of the citizens of the U.S. without public knowledge, consent or, probable cause. The particular incident which had the general public up at arms was when the NSA illicit surveillance came to public knowledge.
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
In this case it’s I think important to understand that Apple would happily open this one phone and give the FBI the info they needed. But this isn’t what the government really wants. The government wants a backdoor key into the operating system itself. This means that government will have total right of entry into your iPhone. This has to be regulated to protect
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.